tv [untitled] December 4, 2010 11:30pm-12:00am PST
commissioner fong: ok, just to clarify the sort of when-when using 27 is that we get down the road as far as cruise ship terminal construction, and when he races are completed, we are at least through stage one of construction? >> yes, i think there are two scenarios we envision. the scenario we are currently advancing and we are currently optimistic will work within the timeframe and provide an amazing grace home, will be to proceed with a new building at 27, demolished the entire 27 non- historic shed, demolished portions of the peer-29 shed that are already degraded when the two were connected many years ago, create a platform. theoretically, you could stop there. it will create places for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people to view the races. that is one option. another is to continue right
along and complete a new building that they can use in its raw form for the america's cup races. essentially, in some ways, you think about these venues. people create venues like this on a temporary basis even for a month-long event, and the question is how far along we have to get to serve purposes for the race and the authority. that is the question that has to be worked out in detail, but any step we take a long entitling those things, doing the demolition, building the new core shell, all those are major steps in delivering a final pier 27 cruise terminal. >> i'm supportive of approving this agreement today, and like many people in the room, i have been fortunate enough to have been on the san francisco bay. there have been many times where i'm sure it is sunny or maybe the fog is rolling in, where you say to yourself that not that many people are out here and
people ought to see this. growing up here on the bay and feeling that it has not been utilized to a full degree, this has been a fantastic opportunity investment for us to open up the san francisco bay and the waters and the enjoyment and benefits that it brings. so i congratulate all of those who have worked and saved the best part of the heavy lifting still ahead. thank you very much. good work and thus far. so we do have a motion unless there is any other comment or discussion. >> may i? i just want to also be on the record as thanking everyone involved for the efforts that have gotten us here today. a couple of people step up and cautioned us to slow down or try to take a little bit more time, and this is one of those situations where we do not have the luxury of time and you have to seize the moment. i think it has been commendable what has been put together in pretty short order, not the least of which has been the
analysis that has been done, and i particularly want to thank port staff for another excellent report that has been mention, really pointing out the solid numbers and the pros and cons, and as you look at those, you realize that there is never a perfect solution to anything. so you need to weigh those, and i think i would like to weigh in with my fellow commissioners that if i had my choice and if i were voting on one option, it does appear to me that the no. waterfront does in the long run benefit everyone the most. i think we do not want to do any harm, and i tend to see and low potential harm if we end up with more, and i think the no. waterfront has so much longer term potential, and i think also will have that minimal affect on so much of the work that has
also been done over the last several years to provide the court with options going forward, and i would hate to see those impacted because we do have to look out very long-term, and we do still have multi- billion dollar needs at the port, so i think we have some answers that really can address every aspect of it and bring benefits to the city, the port, and the bay area if not beyond, so thank you all very much for getting us here. [applause] >> commissioner, could i review the resolution has proposed to amend -- i just want to say that the resolution authorizes -- essentially urges the executive director to advance the board of supervisors to host city agreements.
it should note in the fourth resolve clause, it notes that in both of these in regards to dredging, there are some calls out that dredging is part of the city's infrastructure projects. it moves it forward, removing dredging as part of our infrastructure works and moving it to the works of the authority, and further, the actual amendment to the resolution authorizing -- adding the language of saying, "do not materially increase the obligations or liability of the city of the port except those offset by a commensurate benefit to the city and the port." i just want to say it was a privilege to represent the myriad of the court and city staff that have been here today. i want to thank everyone that has been working to make this happen.
commissioner fong: great. thank you. those in favor of the resolution as read by the court staff -- the port staff? ok, resolution 10-73 is approved. [applause] >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, we have one more item and then we lose this room, so if i could ask you to quietly move on out. we need to hear our next item. we would welcome discussion with you in the hallway as soon as we are done. thank you very much. >> richard berman, if you could come to the podium if you can
even get into the room. rich. excellent. we will have a maine call the item as soon as karen is done monopolizing our quorum. >> item 66 -- 6a, request rescission of resolution 08-61 approving a first amendment to the lease with darling international for premises located at sea wall locker hundred 44 and request approval of modified first amendment to expand permitted uses to include construction and operation of it by a diesel production facility in compliance with a port- approved operations plan and adopting california environmental quality act findings. >> good afternoon. i'm a regulatory specialist with
the port's real estate division. this is a matter that has come to you in the past. we are talking about the darling biodiesel facility. the lease was approved in 1996 and extends through 1998. deventer fats, oils, grease, and animal by-products. in september 2008, the port commission approved an amendment to allow the facility to expand its use, and that would include the production of up to 10 million gallons a year of bio diesel. the highlighted terms i want to remind you of from that, amendment included certification for the facility under national by a diesel standards, clean air act standards, insurance of grits, letter of credit of security for $500,000. importantly also an operations plan which was not required previously, and that included
specific components that addressed concerns in the community and management plan and abatement and upgrade plan, and that was approved with the expectation that the city planning department would approve it with a categorical exemption under ceqa, which was actually something that came to the four -- fore. before the lease was finally executed, there were some details to work out, and before that was executed, the bayview/hunters point community advocates filed an appeal. the results of that appeal included a planning commission recission of its original categorical exemption and the results of that included the nullification of the port commission approval from september 2008. in april 2009, staff came before
the commission and notify you of that appeal and the results of that. the planning department of the city then agreed to again analyze the project. during the process or during that time, the response was to convene a series of community meetings. the port process included three community meetings. one in june 2009, one in october 2009, and 1-april 2010. the first meeting was a review in the community of all the regulatory agencies that play a part in overseeing the operations at the darling facility. they included the us epa for oil said it -- oil storage. they included the quality district. the department of public health for hazardous materials issues. the san francisco puc, and each of those agencies spoke and
presented the kinds of issues that they address when they provide that kind of environmental regulatory oversight. once that was done, some other community issues were raised. the most important one was some concerns about public health risks associated with exposure to odorous emissions from the plant. so we left and prepare for the second meeting with that in mind, that we came back and at the second meeting address fire safety and planning issues, address building permit process issues, and the port came back with a consultant who is a specialist in odor emissions, had been a regulator, and was a certified engineer. darling brought an environmental toxicologist, both of whom stated that there was no evidence that emissions from a plant like this would lead to public health risks. nonetheless, the concerns of the community remained, and at the second meeting, darling agreed
to conduct a systematic evaluation of the health risks associated with those zero risky missions. that involved the preparation of a health risk assessment, so darling hired some consultants who prepared a draft sampling, and those plans were reviewed by the court staff, by department of public health staff, and by the community. once they were approved by all parties, darling with a head and sampled the emissions from the plant and took the data and used it to run a health risk assessment. the health risk assessment was reviewed again by staff with the assistance of staff who are experts in the area, and it was also shared with representatives of the community. the conclusion of the assessment was that there are no health risks -- public health risks associated with the odor is emissions from the plant. the health risk assessment is on file with the executive secretary, and a copy of a
summary evaluation was provided in your packet. at the third meeting, we presented the results of this health risk assessment and address some concerns that resulted from that. the community had been provided the report in advance, so they had the chance to review that. they came in with questions. we address those, and by the end of the meeting, there were no further questions, and it was clear that all the questions have been addressed, and we felt like we were ready to move on. at about that same time, the ceqa process was wrapping up. the ceqa staff performing the analysis had attended each of the community meetings and had been given copies of the health risk assessment, so they were working from the southern waterfront final supplemental impact report. on july 22, 2010, they issued an addendum with respect to this particular project.
they found that there were no supplemental or subsequent environmental analysis required, that the project would not cause new significant impact, and that there were no new mitigation measures necessary to reduce significant impact from the proposed project. we then went ahead with darling and finalized the agreement. we were working than with a modified first agreement. again, you had approved a modified first amendment. the basic differences between the first amendment and the modification are outlined in the staff report. the one that i would call out are that the original required that they use biodiesel in the fleet. the original required that there be a process for dealing with the odor complaints in spite of
the improvements that might be made under the original agreement. the modification required a corrective action plan that would be prepared by dialing consultant but also that the plan be submitted to the community the a the president of the swak or his or her designee and that the darling team be prepared to meet with that person to discuss the corrective action plan and that we incorporate community comments into any corrective plan that was the result of any ongoing patterns of odorous emissions. the final notable difference between the original and modified first amendment were the the emergency notification for the amendment required originally regulatory emergency agencies. the modification added to that direct requirement to notify the community and the specific phone numbers and provisions be provided so that the community
was directly notified by darling rather than waiting for some third-party to let them know of any emergency release that might occur at the facility. with that, we have got a history of what has transpired. we have before you two resolutions. the first which will wrap up the mess associated with the rescission of the planning department, and we are requesting that you rescind resolution 08-61, which was your original approval of the first amendment to the lease, and then resolution 1075 is requesting that you approve the ceqa findings, that you approve the amendment to the lease as modified and that you authorize the executive director to approve and related plans and modifications to the amendment and to execute the first amendment to the lease. thank you.
commissioner fong: any questions? straight to public comment. karen pierce -- oh, i'm sorry. >> so move. >> second. >> thank you for calling me first. i'm the chair of the southern waterfront community, and i'm speaking in that capacity to say that the swac -- swc has supported the concept since it was introduced to us and continue to support it. the main reason is because this is a process that uses purely waste, according to what we were told, rather than depending at any point on using what could be feedstock for human beings, so we feel that this is a model
way to in fact make biodiesel. we also have had a long-term expectation that the port would be involved in insuring that alternative fuels would be available, especially for the trucking industry, since the court -- the port is a magnet for diesel vehicles. we are happy we have finally gotten to this point. i also am the chair of the board of the bayview hunters point community advocate, and we brought the original action that slowed us all down. we are satisfied with the community involvement process that occurred, and we wanted to be sure that they gave the framework to provide an opportunity for the tenant to really become a good neighbor with the community, and we feel that the changes that were just
pointed out to you actually do allow for that good neighbor relationship to be built. thank you. commissioner fong: thank you. eric brooks. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i represent san francisco green party, the local grassroots organization of our city and a building coalition of organizations strongly opposed to your approving this amendment, including global justice equality project, which is a group that has been endorsed in its work by dr. david suzuki, who you are probably all familiar with. also the club locally has come out in opposition that has environmental working group. the key reason that this needs to be rejected is that, first of
all, battlefields themselves, the current ones we already use, are wrecking the planet. since you approved this two years ago, there has been a critical mass of data showing that when you grow battle field crops, even the second generation once, it shifts land use in a way that creates more carbon dioxide, more greenhouse gases, and is devastating economies and the environment all over the place. the air rang it can is going extinct because of the tipping point that have been caused. the key problem with -- the fundamental problem with the darling facility is that the fact we're talking about are not waste. i called darling three weeks ago. every single one of those is used by industries to make paint, cosmetics, animal food, pet food. we shipped the use away from those uses to biodiesel, all of those will go to crop oils to
get their fat. they will have no other option. so it will perpetuate and probably make even worse the current disaster that is happening worldwide because of biofuels and crop oil use. berkeley and seattle have canceled their bio diesel programs because of what crop oils are doing to the planet. europe is about to reel back on its requirements. also, the recent reports of increased gold dust show that even if you did this, darling international is questionable, and this should be held up until we find out what is going on. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we are one of the three unions that represent people working at darling, and we are speaking in favor of the project. we would like to see it move
forward. we have always worked to make sure that jobs are available for the communities that we have jobs in. we have a hiring hall to make sure that happens. we look forward to being able to put more members of the community to work in good jobs that help sustain their families. the waste greece has been going into that plan for longer than i have been living in san francisco, said this is not any kind of new project or any kind of escalation. if anything, it is a recycling project which is way ahead of its time. we share the environmental concerns because our people work right in the heart of it. we are glad that caution has been exercised, but we are confident that has moved forward, so we urge you to approve this.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the director of climate protection initiatives in the office of the mayor, and i come here today on behalf of the mayor to speak in strong support of the by is a project. this is a ground-breaking project to take a waste product and produce its and turn it into a recyclable, renewable, domestically produced, locally produced transportation fuel that will help the city meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets of 20% below 1990 levels by the end of this year. in 2007, the city converted all of its 1500 diesel vehicles to be able to use biodiesel in all
of those vehicles, and in order for us to continue that goal and expand upon it, we need to produce more locally produced biodiesel, and the point that mr. brooks raised earlier in my mind present a case that is using a product that is otherwise seen as a waste and no longer using biodiesel from other stocks that could be used for food purposes, so on behalf of the mayor, i strongly urge your support for this project. thank you. commissioner fong: 90. >> good afternoon, commissioners. biodiesel has 80% less greenhouse gas emissions than standard emissions, said this is key to meeting our greenhouse
gas emissions goals. the other benefit is that we are taking a local waste product converting it into fuel stock to be used locally in our very own diesel fleet and supporting green jobs locally, so this is about as green as you can get. thank you. commissioner fong: thank you. eric smith, and then david haskell -- david pascal. >> thank you. just by way of reference, the executive director of green depot and the -- on the board of directors of biofuel recycling. we have worked with the department of the environment as well as the puc to collect some 30,000 gallons of restaurant grease per month in san francisco and use it for biofuels and we work with the department of the environment. i just want to say i want to thank the court staff for the work that they did going out
into the community to educate them about this. especially rich. he did a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances. we had several community meetings. darling came out. the court was there. all of the bio diesel community came out to these meetings to understand what this project really means. i'm also the vice chair of the city's bio diesel task force. we are supportive of the project. we think it is important. the city right now uses about 3 million gallons, but most of it comes from the midwest. it comes from solely and canola. despite the stories we have heard about food versus feels, that is pretty much a ploy by the grocery industry. the cattle farmers did very well during the so-called crisis. this is important because darling plans on making 10 million gallons of biodiesel
made from waste feedstock. that is something that the city can use to sell to local folks, to fuel the trucks, to fuel local providers, and others i think is really important. right now, we spend about 25 cents per gallon to bring all that fuel in. this is definitely more sustainable. and all the notions about breeding animals for fuel and everything else is absolutely ridiculous. i'm a supporter of this program. i think this is exactly what san francisco needs, and i urge your support for it. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a resident of san this is the period from january 2008 through january 2009, i was the clean business advocate for san francisco -- i'm a resident of san francisco. i was asked to provide some
historical perspective on this project since it was one of the first ones i was responsible for back in early 2008. when i came to this project, i was new city government. i knew very little about biodiesel and i have no voice in this race, but what i did have was a very clear directive to identify the best solution for the city to sustainably source the biofuel. at the time, there were a number of proposals on the table, competing proposals. the port had some ideas. the sfpuc had some ideas, as did the community at large. what we proceeded to do was evaluate all those proposals, taking into account environmental and community impacts, taking into account first and ongoing cost to the city, considering timelines, considering the technology, and considering in the execution --
risks. as a result, the darling proposal seemed to be the one that was best overall solution, so with that, we were able to build consensus from all the members of the city family. we also quickly secured funding for the task force. after the additional community outreach, we also secured the community support. i think you have one of those rare instances where you have one of those rare support behind a project of this nature. i would urge the city to support this so the community can begin reaping the benefits of this project. thank you. commissioner fong: thank you. any additional community,? >> thank you. i am the ceo of san francisco bay railroad and also viha